Digraphs *and* Unicode pretty-glyphs, for arrows, triangle, etc.

Corey Richardson corey at octayn.net
Thu Apr 5 09:45:20 PDT 2012


On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:00:56 -0500, Adam Shannon <adam at ashannon.us> wrote:
> I don't see anything inherently wrong with adding some nice sugar to
> ES, because the people who will be using this "math heavy" notation
> will be those who are used to it. The "everyday" ecmascript programmer
> probably won't touch these because they might add extra work for them.
> Plus, it'd be nice to be able to read math in ES (for us math oriented
> folk).
> 

You don't see anything wrong with making the spec larger, implementation
harder, adding more to learn, more for a decent text editor to support, and
more burden on everyone who doesn't want to use those fancy unicode thingers?

As mentioned elsewhere on the list, it's best as a display option in a text
editor, not as a language feature. It doesn't even introduce minification
benefits since the number of bytes in any of those fancy symbols encoded to
utf8 is >= the equivalent number of 'regular' operators.

Bikeshedding'ly yours,
Corey Richardson


More information about the es-discuss mailing list